Rostislav Ishchenko: The outcome of 25 years of the Ukrainian independence (MUST SEE!!)

Note: I consider Rostislav Ishchenko by far the best specialist on the current Ukraine. This is why I requested a full length translation and transcript of his interview with Boris Kostenko, a very good journalist. A huge “thank you!!” to Eugenia and Seva for their immense work and making this most interesting material available to us.

BORIS KOSTENKO, ANCHORMAN: Good day, dear viewers. Here is our traditional series “The Ukrainian issues”. It became traditional after the coup in Ukraine. Now we mark (you can hardly say, celebrate) 25 years of the Ukrainian independence. Not just the breakup of the Soviet Union, but also of independent Ukraine. In August of 2016, geopolitics interfered again, so we call this issue “Geopolitics again – Ukraine”. We are live on the air, so you can call and we will answer your questions with our guest political scientist Rostislav Ischenko.

As I already said, military parade in Kiev, with some guests present, a formal date. Many people are trying to evaluate the results… It is one thing to observe Ukraine, and another when the Ukrainian issue became so important, starting with Maidan, for the last two and a half years we observe the hot, or acute, or critical phase, or the sunset of Ukraine. It is hard to tell what to call it, but it appears to be inevitable.

00:01:24:21

ROSTISLAV ISCHENKO: I guess, although from my prospective the problem of the acuteness of the Ukrainian crisis is not so much in the sharp souring of Ukrainian-Russian relations, and not even in the fact that essentially a terrorist government came to power in Ukraine. We always had all sorts of neighbors, and Poland, for example, was unfriendly to Russia for most of its history. There were periods of friendship, but those were relatively short. Most of the time, the Polish state was either openly hostile or unfriendly to Russia. Nonetheless, we are not talking about a permanent Polish crisis, nor are we discussing Polish issues. The reason is that, whether good or bad, friendly or not, the Polish state is stable, so that we can build stable predictable relations with it. We can build them on a clear foundation, either based on mutual benefit, or on attempts to find points of agreement.

In contrast, when we discuss Ukraine, particularly now, although this started even before the coup, but became a crisis after the coup, speaking of Ukraine we talk about the territory of constant disintegration. Of course, we can sigh and say that Ukraine is disintegrating for two years and still has not disintegrated, but when the administrative structure in a country has been destroyed, as well as the power structure, the economy has been destroyed, when for two and a half years the government cannot do anything with illegal armed groups and has either to legitimize them, or just follow their desires, when that country has at least a duality of powers, or more like the lack of power, to call this a state would be an overstatement.

I want to say that the key issue of the Ukrainian crisis is not the Russophobic nature of the Ukrainian powers, not in their very unfriendly relations with Russia, and not even in a fact that there is a civil war in Ukraine, although civil war is a bad thing. The problem is that there is no state worthy of the name, and all neighbors of Ukraine think more and more not just about what else would the Ukrainian authorities do, but what’s going to happen when the state finally disappears. Then you wouldn’t be asking what did Poroshenko do or who were the guests at the parade, but rather what’s the name of the person ruling at least a couple of blocks in Kiev, and whether what we saw in the streets was still a parade or already a shootout. As the situation is definitely moving in this direction in Ukraine, and its neighbors understand that this will have consequences for them.

For example, the US was always ready to destroyed Libya, Syria, Ukraine, but never tried to destroy Mexico, for obvious reasons: because Mexico is on their border. They will never try to destroy Canada, because Canada is on their border. Ukraine is on our border. That is why the Ukrainian crisis is such a stumbling block for us. Because it is clear that its going to become only worse, and not at all clear what efforts and resources would be needed to deal with it. We know even from recent history that crises of that kind are easy to initiate, but the crisis in Somalia is still not solved, the crisis in Yemen also continues low key for many years: the latest coup as part of the “Arab spring” was not the first civil war in Yemen in the last 20 years. It was easy to start this kind of crisis in Syria or Ukraine, but it is hard to end them, because in essence afterwards everything has to be rebuilt from scratch. One has to create some administrative and state institutions, revive the economy, rebuild infrastructure just to allow people to live on that territory. Otherwise, they will keep killing each other and run away to neighboring countries, as there is no other way to survive. I think that is what makes the Ukrainian events a crisis, making them a global problem, not just an internal Ukrainian, but a global crisis.

00:07:25:12

KOSTENKO: When we called this issue “Geopolitics again”, one could accuse us of elevating this problem to the level it does not deserve, that we are trying to solve it on a macro-level, over-interpret it. Unfortunately, what we say is an objective truth. Our neighbors, relations, people with the last name similar to ours, became hostages of the situation, which is directed by the people from afar. This does not make it any easier. We know that world conflicts with extremely murderous consequences start easily, and then become unmanageable. The events in Ukraine are scary not only because there live our compatriots but also because this maelstrom can suck in half of Eastern Europe, not to mention our country.

ISCHENKO: You know, even if the people living their had Norwegian or Portuguese last names and no one had relatives in Russia, the fact that this territory is right on the Russian border, the fact that several tens of millions of people live in a situation where the economy is totally destroyed…

KOSTENKO: Is there exact statistics regarding the population?

ISCHENKO: 30 to 40 million.

KOSTENKO: Nobody counted how many moved.

00:08:58:17

ISCHENKO: Even before these events, there were no exact numbers how many people actually live in Ukraine, because 3-6 millions worked in Russia – nobody knew exact numbers – and 3-6 millions worked in Western Europe. The numbers of Gastarbeiters are roughly equal. Exact numbers do not exist, because many worked illegally. The fact of crossing the border does not mean that the person works, but the fact that he is not officially registered does not mean that he is not working. Some Ukrainians, particularly those in oil and gas industry, worked long shifts, i.e., they came to the Russian North fields and left on the regular basis, whereas others worked in summer home construction near Moscow. These could have left for a week every year and then returned back to work.

The same situation in Italy: when I flew from Rome, I met a Ukrainian women who said she works there taking care of children in a family, and that’s her first vacation in two or three years. She will go back for a short time and must be back in a week. So, out of 730 days a person got 5 days to visit her country. Officially, she is counted as a person living in Ukraine. In reality, she does not live there for that long, and she is dreaming of the happy moment when she makes enough money to get her whole family out of Ukraine. We are not talking about individuals here. Millions of people are in this situation – gradually getting their families out. Now this process has accelerated, simply because living standards in Ukraine dropped catastrophically, began the civil war, and, in addition, remaining in Ukraine became simply dangerous. Naturally, every sane person tries to get out of place where he can be killed for no reason tomorrow. While at the beginning mostly ideological opponents of the regime fled Ukraine, now even relatively well-off people are fleeing, because they know that robbers might come for them tomorrow, or maybe in a month, or in two months.

KOSTENKO: They feel they are just not needed in Ukraine.

ISCHENKO: It seems like a long time, but it isn’t. First, you lose your income, your job, and so on. Naturally, some businesses function even in Somalia, but they are few and far between. The rest of the population first lives using their savings. However, if you have substantial savings or live much better than your neighbors, someone might come to rob you.

KOSTENKO: We have a phone call. Go ahead, we are listening. Please introduce yourself and tell us where from you are calling.

CALLER: I am calling from Rostov-on-Don, my name is Vladimir Viktorovich.

KOSTENKO: Good day.

00:12:40:00

CALLER: I am glad to see Rostislav Ischenko, who is one of our talented political scientists, like Korotchenko, or Kurginian. I wish our President listened to these political scientists more often. My question: what is the role of Western Ukrainian Uniates in the events in Ukraine?

KOSTENKO: One can write a PhD thesis on this subject. Thanks for the question!

00:13:07:16

ISCHENKO: To put it in short, their role is destructive. On the other hand, Uniates are different. There are people who actually believe that way and are not active politically. On the other hand, there are people who see this not as a religion, a way to communicate with God, but as a political platform. Indeed, many Uniates, who constitute arguably the largest fraction, were active supporters of Maidan, took part in it, and were its armed force. However, we have to understand that it is not Uniates as such, nor even Western Ukrainians, who are not all Uniates, as there are Catholics and Orthodox Christians among them. There are also people opposing the regime there, who are fairly numerous, although there are fewer of those in Western Ukraine than in other regions. Anyway, none of them could have driven Ukraine to its current state by themselves without two factors.

First, the readiness of the people in power to follow the Nazi dictate. Yanukovich promoted the Nazis and then tried to come to an agreement with them, but then he failed in that and ran away. Poroshenko also tries to reach an agreement with the Nazis, as he hasn’t been able for the last two and a half years to force them to obey the law. Second, the readiness of a large fraction of politically inactive Ukrainian citizens to follow criminal orders of criminal powers. In the end, the army that fought in Donbass did not consist of Uniates or people from Galicia. It had 50-60%, if not more, of regular draftees from the Central and Eastern regions. Complete battalions were formed in Donetsk region, such as battalion “Shahter” (Coal Miner). Yes, it was staffed by criminals, but these criminals were from a particular area, from the Donetsk region. In essence, the split went through the entire country, and adherents of various religions, people of different ethnic background, including people like Saakashvili, who could be described as a Ukrainian of sorts or even a Ukrainian by chance (even though at some point he shouted at Avakov “I am a Ukrainian”, nevertheless a couple of years ago he didn’t even know that he was a Ukrainian). So, even people like that participate in this process. The key thing is that large proportion of the populace was ready to follow orders: if there had been even passive resistance, the government wouldn’t have been able to start this kind of war. Say, if tens or hundreds of thousands didn’t show up in draft offices and go to the front, the government wouldn’t be able to jail them all, because then they’d have to jail virtually the entire male population. If the army refused to shoot, the war would be impossible: when the artillery and tanks are at the front but do not shoot, there is no war.

But all were ready to follow criminal orders for a variety of reasons. Some because they did not care, any power is a power; some because they decided they couldn’t do anything about it, as they needed to eat but had no money, so they had to earn some in the army; some because they did not think about anything; some thought that it was Russia’s fault that it failed to save Ukraine; some because they thought that the US was stronger, anyway, so why resist them. So, the reasons were different, but the most important thing is that they agreed to follow the orders. The coup was accomplished by a small group of people. If we count storm troopers who participated in the coup, there were 10-15 thousand of them in all of Ukraine. Whereas the official population of the country at the time was ~45 million, in reality more like 40 million. At the time, Crimea and Donbass were parts of Ukraine. So, there was a chance to avoid even a shootout. The shootout was started by unofficial battalions, various volunteers, who took arms voluntarily and went to fight in Donbass. The army joined them later. BTW, at the beginning “volunteers” headed for Crimea to bring “order”.

According to the law and their oath, the army, police, and special forces had to stop these illegal armed groups, disarm them, regardless of their political views, simply because only the state has the right to use force, and only according to the law. If one political force has 10 thousand armed men, the opposite will also get 10 thousand armed men. Therefore, the fact is that neither the army, nor the police or the special forces fulfilled their duty, but passively observed the situation. Then they said: what could we do if that’s what the political power wanted, and we received orders. This played a critical role in the Ukrainian situation, and in everything that is now happening with Ukraine, with its population, as well as with the law enforcement and the special forces. Since Nuremberg, it is a part of the international law that not only giving criminal orders, but also following criminal orders is a crime. Many low-level Nazis, at the rank of Sturmfuhrer of Haupt-sturmfuhrer SS, were hanged only for following somebody else’s orders. They did not decide anything by themselves; they only received written orders and followed them. Nonetheless, after the war they were considered responsible for their actions.

The same is currently happening with the Ukrainian forces: they are following criminal orders and they did not fulfill their duties, i.e., they did not prevent the beginning of the civil war.

KOSTENKO: As far as Uniates are concerned, as there was a question about the Uniates, they took a very uncompromising stand during the Christian procession by the Ukrainian Orthodox church. They behaved in an un-Christian, very aggressive and offensive manner, as they understood that the events in Kiev destroyed all their propaganda, particularly in Eastern Ukraine.

00:21:09:12

ISCHENKO: I would like to repeat that this applies not only to Uniates, it applies to the whole pro-Maidan forces in Ukrainian politics: Orthodox Christians, atheists, and all other supporters of Maidan, and they are more numerous than Uniates. They used to say even after the first Maidan, in 2006-2007, that it’s impossible to act nicely, as the population is “wrong” and votes for pro-Russian politicians. Right after the first Maidan, in 2006, the Party of Regions got the majority in the Parliament, formed the government, and in 2010 Yanukovich was elected President. Well, in 2007 President Yuschenko organized another coup by dissolving the parliament, but in 2010 Yanukovich was elected president. So, since the population is “wrong” and votes “wrong”, alternative measures must be taken, like hanging the opponents, putting them into concentration camps, and generally solving problems by force. That’s exactly what they did right after the second Maidan. Thus, they came their conclusions back then, they understood that they cannot win elections, ever. This is not a confessional position; it is a purely political decision to solve the problem by the force of arms.

00:22:34:17

KOSTENKO: When we recently mentioned (I will try to switch gears now) Anatoliy Klyan, who I worked with on Channel 1 (it was not called that then, it was called TV Ostankino). He was murdered in Donetsk when this armed force, lawlessness and impunity, and the desire to scare the populace, turned to killing journalists. We called Vladimir Soloviev (Volodya is with us now), and I would like to remind that he is a journalist for international affairs, and he was the head of the Channel 1 international bureau in the Balkans, and Anatoliy worked for him. There is another anniversary: 25 years ago two of our colleagues I knew personally through my work in the news program Vremya, were murdered. Their names are Nogin and Kurennoy, two our journalists.

Volodya, do you hear me?

SOLOVIEV: I hear you, Boris.

KOSTENKO: I would like to say that the memorial plaque to Anatoliy Klyan was opened on September 1st, 2015, that is why we put you on air to draw attention 25 years later to the death of journalists doing their job in various countries, trying to tell what was going on at that time. That includes our colleagues who died on the front lines 25 years ago.

SOLOVIEV: When the memorial plaque honoring our friend Anatoliy Klyan was opened last year I said that we should put a plaque here on the TV center building to commemorate those who died on duty first, who Anatoliy Klyan and I replaced in our Yugoslavian press branch in 1991, Viktor Nogin and Gennady Kurennoy. Today, I learned that the plaque commemorating them will be opened on August 31st. It is ready, it is already attached to the wall of TV center Ostankino on the side of Ostankino pond. For now, it is covered with a sheet and will be opened on August 31. In parallel, our Serbian colleagues and friends, talented people who like Russia, will open a commemorative plaque on the building where was our press office, where Viktor Nogin lived with his family, where later I lived with my family, in New Belgrade, Gandieva street, on the same day will be opened a plaque honoring Viktor Nogin and Gennady Kurennoy.

KOSTENKO: Thank you for talking to us today and reminding us of our colleagues and friends. 30 years ago I graduated from the school of journalism started working in Vremya (Time). I worked there a few years, and it is likely that I was the last person who talked to Nogin over the phone when we recorded his reports. He was a romanticist of a journalist, probably like those who worked in Donetsk and Lugansk in the first months of this war. Volodya, since you are with us on the air – forgive me that I am addressing you by the first name. You are a serious person now.

SOLOVIEV: Well, we have been so much together, how else should we address each other?

KOSTENKO: Let me mention that back then in Belgrade we were filming, Volodya, Anatoliy, and I, under fire, could have been to being killed. Survived by pure luck – got ourselves under artillery fire. Let me mention that back then in Belgrade we were close to being killed, got under bombing. After that experience, the events in Ukraine do not feel like a geopolitical chess game, but rather like the experience of living people in particular events. Volodya, I wanted to ask when did we learn that Anatoliy was killed in Ukraine? I never asked you before, but what did his acquaintances, friends, relatives say about the cause of his death, and that he died in the area we feel connected to, in the beautiful city of Donetsk? From a bullet shot by someone who was just recently our compatriot. It’s the same thing that happened in the Balkans, the death like that of Nogin and Kurennoy.

SOLOVIEV: Yes, it is similar. The fate of our “Uncle Anatoliy” is paradoxical, for in the Balkans, as you well know, since you have been there with us, we often had higher chances to be killed than to remain alive. Snipers were shooting in Saraevo, in Eastern Slavonia, Kosovo, in many other places, but God let us live. We lived these few decades, and then “Uncle Anatoliy” decided to go to Ukraine. It feels absurd that someone who has been through so much – and he was in many wars; we were with him in Chechnya, were once in an extreme situation in Argun, where the troops were arresting a whole gang, with shootouts and troop carriers – and then he was killed by a single bullet in Ukraine by people we considered our relatives. That was anomalous, surprising, strange, symbolical, you can call it in many ways. I hope our colleagues will remembered this.

00:29:33:16

KOSTENKO: Thank you for participating. There is a reason why we remembered our colleagues today. We discuss Ukrainian nationalism, destroyed economy, the fact the Mr. Biden tells the Ukrainian government who and when to appoint. On the other side of this balance are the lists of people missing in action, jailed – there still has been no comprehensive exchange of war prisoners, even though this was agreed upon. Every day there is shelling, and the numbers of shelling incidents go up every day. We keep talking about new escalation and worsening of the situation in South-Eastern Ukraine. Previously, we talked about dozens of shelling incidents per day, now we are talking about hundreds: a month ago it was 700 or 800 per day, using heavy artillery. People are dying. Members of the militia serving at block-posts know that they can be killed every day. This bloody business continues – this is not geopolitics, but real people. I look at you and see that your eyes are sad when you talk about what is happening in Ukraine. I understand that, after all, despite these political discussions we know how many people were murdered, how much blood was spilled. Unfortunately, we see that this does not stop. We met last time before the incident in Crimea.

Today we know that two of our military lost their lives, were murdered by those whose state ordered them to kill. This dramatically changed the situation, and I think we need to discuss that. Few people look at this from the ethical angle, although the ethical angle is hardly appropriate when we discuss today’s Ukraine, everything there is built not on ethics. Nonetheless, our military personnel on active duty was killed. Is this casus belli? Unfortunately, it is.

ISCHENKO: First, my eyes are always sad, I was born like that. Second, we don’t know how many lost their lives and how many will lose their lives yet. We can only guess that more people died than is officially acknowledged.

KOSTENKO: Ten thousand is the official number.

00:32;30:07

ISCHENKO: Well, this ten thousand number did not change in two years. It is safe to assume that a lot more were killed, and even more will be killed. Unfortunately, all of this is a geopolitical game. Geopolitical games always affect real people’s fates, sometimes the fates of states or even civilizations. People are not always killed in military conflicts and don’t always die from armed hands. A few millions of Bengalis or a few millions of Irish who dies of hunger, which was, if not organized, then at least sanctioned by the British government, did not feel easier. They also were an element in a big geopolitical game. As you understand, neither British government at the time, nor the British parliament personally hated any of these people or even knew them. They were for those in power only statistics. It just so happened, that it turned out to be useful, not even necessary, simply useful, not to help these people survive. They were not killed on purpose; nobody would’ve minded if they survived. In case of Bengal, British government was short of resources to help them during the ongoing WWI to maintain reasonable supply of food in their own colony.

The current situation is similar. People who wanted to play Ukraine against Russia – they did not calculate that it was absolutely necessary to kill a certain number of people, hundreds, thousands, or millions of citizens of Ukraine or Russian Federation, or name all of them by name. They wanted the result, and they did not care whether it would be achieved with or without spilled blood. There was no blood spilled by the first Maidan. If the result could be achieved with little blood, it’s OK, but lots of blood is OK, too. They are fighting for the result. We are also fighting for the result, a geopolitical result. In our case, this result matches the interests of the Ukrainian population, even if a large proportion of the populace in Ukraine does not understand that. Objectively, it is in their interests, as geopolitical goals of Russia would allow Ukrainians to live in a more orderly society with better standards of living. In contrast, the geopolitical results the US is fighting for is like that with the Bengalis: if they survived, it’s OK, if not, whatever. Nonetheless, we are also fighting for a geopolitical result. BTW, as far as the Crimean events are concerned, the reaction of the Russian leadership was not spontaneous: there was a provocation, which was taken as casus belli, a reason to start a war. Unquestionable reason.

KOSTENKO: Yes.

00:36:32:17

ISCHENKO: But Russia did not start a war, right? If it wanted to do so, it could have started a war a week or two ago. If it wanted to, Russia could have started a war even in 2014, because Ukrainian shells landed on Russian territory and killed Russian civilians. So, if Russia wanted a war, it could have started it then, as it does not matter whether killed citizens are on active duty or not. It is an act of aggression, and the state decides how to react. This shows that Russia is trying to act not just on principle “you are an idiot yourself”, or just react symmetrically to aggression, but rather to achieve a clear result, which would stabilize the situation on territories still called Ukraine. That would allow Russia to achieve this stabilization either without blood, or with minimal blood, preferably someone else’s.

In fact, today Russia does not have a right to make a mistake. In WWI, we could figure that a hundred thousand dead more or fewer did not matter, in the Civil War we could afford to lose six or eight million, or even more – nobody counted. We could count for decades how many people Russia lost in the Great Patriotic War (WWII), 12, or 25, or 26 million – these numbers are disparate and uncertain. The victims were counted many times, but the final number is still unknown. However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, after the demographic catastrophe that affected all Slavic, in fact, all European republics of the former USSR, now we don’t have a right to make a mistake. Because if we next time have to correct a political mistake by spending additional resources, first of all human resources, we will have neither people nor the state left. 140 million for Russian territory is nothing. If one extrapolates from the beginning of the twentieth century, we should have had more than half a billion, i.e., more than half a billion people, 500-700 million should have lived within the borders of former Russian empire by the end of the twentieth century. These people do not exist. We only have 140 million. Our natural resources are vast, but our human, economic, financial resources are rather limited. If you compare them with the resources of the whole world, they constitute a smaller fraction than the resources of the Russian Empire in the early twentieth century. So, the situation is more critical. Thus, however hard that might be, we must play this game very skillfully and precisely, as any error can become fatal. I mean fatal not for an individual or a group of people, it could become fatal for Russia as a country. That’s why we are still in crisis, because we cannot afford to overwhelm the adversary with dead bodies.

KOSTENKO: Many people wished for the hot phase of the conflict to begin, they were counting on that…

ISCHENKO: By the way, recently I said somewhere, on some talk show, don’t remember where exactly, that if we listened to our own alarmists, since 2014 Russia would have started three wars: they advocated starting a big war in Ukraine, they demanded that we send a large troop contingent to Syria and win there within two weeks, and they demanded that we start a war with Turkey. These are the three wars that Russia could, and some believe should, have started since 2014. And now let’s add up the potentials of all those we should have fought and ask ourselves, where could we have gotten the resources for these three wars.

KOSTENKO: In each case, including Syria, there was a reason to start a war, there was casus belli.

00:41:26:22

ISCHENKO: If we had gotten ourselves embroiled even in a single war, there would’ve been reasons to start more, including in the Caucuses, in Central Asia, and even in the Baltics a casus belli there would’ve been provided, as this is elementary strategy: stretch the forces of your adversary to less important directions, so that it won’t have a chance to concentrate its forces on the key direction. That is precisely what is happening now. That is why I think we should cool down the emotions, however unpleasant that might be. It would be good for the maximal fraction of the population to understand simple things. I won’t teach the plumber I invite how to fix my toilet, and I won’t teach the chef in a restaurant how to cook my food; I won’t teach train crew how to run a train, or the pilot how to fly a plane. So, however wise a person thinks himself, and however simple solutions he thinks he sees, he should not assume that an amateur, a person far removed not only from politics, but even from the essential information, because he get his info from 2-3 fixed sources he chose for himself, that he can by chance see a clear correct solution that the others don’t.

00:43:12:08

KOSTENKO: That would be naïve. We have a question. Please, go ahead, you are on the air, introduce yourself.

CALLER: I am Natalia, from Moscow region. I would like to ask about the prospect of disintegration of Ukraine. I would like to know what are going to be likely pieces, and when it is likely to happen.

00:43:41:15

ISCHENKO: Let’s start with parts. Go to the grocery store, buy a watermelon (not too big, so that it won’t be a big loss), and drop it to the ground. It can break into a random number of random pieces. If you drop watermelons one after another, they won’t repeat the pattern. The same situation is with Ukraine. One can speak of historical borders of historical Ukrainian territories and say: it will disintegrate along these borders. However, I remember about 7-8 years ago some decent people organized a conference on the subject of Ukrainian federalization. At the time the word “federalization” was not yet considered criminal in Ukraine. There were about 20 speakers that discussed what they thought should be the borders of Ukrainian regions. They could not agree not only regarding the borders, but even regarding the number of the regions. The suggestions ranged from 4-5 up to more than 30 regions. In reality, each of these regions, each of the official regions in Ukraine, as Crimea, Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), and Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) showed, can become independent. Crimea, before joining Russia, declared independence and for a few days or hours was an independent state. DPR and LPR declared independence within the borders of their regions, even though they do not control their whole regions but only about half. Note that both DNP and LNP have been declared specifically within the borders declared independence and, despite all the efforts to unite them into one state, they don’t want to unite. Lugansk does not want to get orders from Donetsk; Donetsk does not want to follow orders from Lugansk. They coordinate their efforts, they fight a common enemy, but they consider themselves two independent states. Although, if Russia invites them to join, they will do that without even asking whether they will be merged with something within Russia, accepted as a single unit, or as two separate units.

The same applies to other Ukrainian regions. Among other things, the problem is which force would be able to stabilize the situation in each particular region after the collapse of the Ukrainian state. In some, this force would be Nazi storm troopers, because there will be many of them, and they are armed. That would be one situation. In a neighboring region, there could be people with the opposite political views, and the situation would be different. These two regions could even start fighting each other. I won’t exclude the possibility that each of these groups will speak on behalf of all Ukraine, even though each would control only a part of the territory of one region. In some places, the current administration might retain power, and they will claim legitimacy on the ground that they were appointed by Poroshenko, who was recognized by the world. In some places, moderates, like former Party of Regions, might come to power, and even communists, now excluded even from the Parliament, who might try to restore Ukraine as it was under Yanukovich. In the end, the outcome will be determined by the resources of each of these statelets, and their armed forces capable of supporting these states and spreading its control to neighboring territories.

I think right now DPR and LPR are in the best position, because they are, although unrecognized, real independent states; they have their armies; they want to expand to the borders of their regions, as they claim those territories. If the Ukrainian power collapses and the army starts to disintegrate, the borders of regions are easy to traverse, as there are no ditches or border signs, and the distance from Slavyansk to Kharkov is ~ one-hour car ride. Thus, they can expend to the neighboring regions. If the people there support you, and I think they will support DPR and LPR, you can expand your power further.

I think that for some short and very unpleasant period in Ukraine will be a very bloody war of everybody against everybody, in which the South-East will have an advantage. So, in Donetsk and Lugansk the war will end or, at least, subside, whereas the war will start on the rest of Ukrainian territory. Then within borders where the local authorities will have enough power to introduce administration and police force, stabilization will begin, largely of the same type as in DPR and LPR. Therefore, there will be unrecognized entities that will be establishing order on their territory using their armed forces, possibly, with the support of DPR and LPR. Next, if Ukrainian nationalists have enough brains, they will have to come to some kind of agreement with the powers controlling Galichina. We know that while the South-East will be controlled by pro-Russian forces, Galichina will be controlled by forces resembling the current Kiev regime, possibly, even more right-wing. At a minimum, all of them would have to agree that the Ukrainian state does not exist any more, as that’s the only way they can legitimize themselves as a new power. If they cancel the previous state, then they can establish new states with any borders, each on its territory the way they want.

The pro-Russian fraction of Ukrainian citizens compactly lives in the South-East, and DPR and LPR get an open support from Russia suggesting that the rest can also count on some support. I mean not so much military, as humanitarian, technical, and administrative support, help in building normal power structures. Hence, the situation can be at least stabilized in those areas. I don’t expect paradise, but relatively quickly, in a year or year and a half, maybe two, on these territories acceptable conditions for people’s lives could be arranged. I think that in all the territories that for some reason cannot be immediately taken over by pro-Russian forces, the lawlessness will continue, and they won’t have resources to recreate basic state institutions. Thus, they will progressively move to bandit-ruled state.

Then, to return to your question of who will join whom and how many parts will there be, this becomes an international law problem. Its solution would depend on the geopolitical situation at that time. It is clear that from the historical standpoint Russia not only can but has an obligation to claim all territories of the former USSR. Simply because if you say: “I don’t need that”, – you can be asked, “maybe you don’t need this, and that, either, and other things?” However, to legitimize these claims, Russia needs a strong geopolitical position including solving all other crises. Moreover, to actually claim all that Russia needs sufficient resources to rebuild these territories. I would say that today Russia does not have sufficient resources. If we imagine that the world is stable and there are no military threats, maybe we could attempt that. But in today’s reality, Russia does not have sufficient resources. There is hope that the EU would also participate, as it does not want the disruption of the Ukrainian transit. Even in its current pathetic state, Ukrainian transit would play an important role for the EU for the next 3-4 years. This means that Russia can try and make the EU pay for stabilization of Ukraine. However, this means saying at the negotiation table that we will do this, you will do that, you will pay this much, but at that point they will also present their claims.

The claims would include Polish claim for Galichina, Romania would claim Bukovina and southern Bessarabia, Hungary would claim trans-Carpathian region. These won’t be empty claims, they will be supported by the presence on those territories of citizens of claiming states, as the issuance of Romanian passports in Bukovina and Bessarabia and Hungarian passports in trans-Carpathian region last if not all 25 years of Ukrainian independence, then at least 20 years. Poland for the last 10-15 years is issuing Polish cards, which allows application for Polish citizenship. I.e., Poland recognizes these people as half-Polish citizens, Poles who can become Polish citizens. Poland has issued millions of these Polish cards, as the whole population of Western Ukraine was happy to get them. This made it easier for them to cross Polish border, where they went as Gastarbeiters. Thus, these claims will be strengthened from the point of view of the international law. So, the question is, how strong will Russia be at that time to push through its will, how skilled would be Russian diplomacy to convince everyone to listen to Russia, that is the question.

00:55:46:03

KOSTENKO: We called our issue “Geopolitics”, and you said that Russia does not have resources to restore this ~40-million Ukraine. We understand that our viewers mostly live in Russia. What is happening in Ukraine, as well as the fact that we live in a state of war, or at least there are good reasons to start a war, we are pushed to start a war by aggressive moves, even the fact that at G20 in China the leaders of two European countries and our president will meet and discuss the fate of Ukraine without its participation – all suggest that geopolitically we advanced pretty far, and that we need to solve this problem. Europe also understands that. One of the conclusions from our today’s discussions is that we are not in a vacuum; we cannot relax; the international situation is quite tense, although this phrase is too familiar for those who lived in the USSR. We also need to understand that we are alone; we are doomed to be alone geopolitically. Yes, we have allies and friends, maybe, will acquire new ones in the East, but we can achieve our goals only by our own efforts. Thanks for your statement that we do not have a right to make mistakes. We cannot make mistake in the priorities to solve step by step this Ukrainian crisis, which was the subject of our today’s conversation.

Thank you, Rostislav, for your participation, for spending this hour with our viewers and me.

At this point we end our program. See you again at our broadcasts about the Ukrainian issues, which, unfortunately, we will have to address for quite a while. I would like to emphasize this “unfortunately”, it would be better not to have a reason for this program. But it will appear again.

All the best and God bless. Goodbye!

The Essential Saker II: Civilizational Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to get more info on formatting

(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.

(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.

(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:

a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more quickly.

and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in Name of your link

(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs:&nbsp;You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated.The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will look like before you send it.

(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.

Comment

Name:

E-mail:

26 Comments

Thank you all for the translation and hard work in producing this video. R. Ishchenko is a brilliant but grounded thinker. The big shift for me was when he said that Russia should have 700 million people and not just 140 million given the relative population growth rates of other countries over the last century….And With a GNP of Italy but a vast expanse of land mass to manage and protect! There is no margin for error given what has been thrust upon it. Got it. It is like the competent precision of the jet pilots putting their planes 10ft away from the surveillance aircraft from NATO to read their ID’s. has to be replicated on every level.

He overestimated those numbers though. Russian demographers have written a “what could have been” on what Russia’s population would have been at today if the turn of the 20th century birthrates would have continued. And the death and destruction of the horrible 20th century had not interfered.They came up with about half his figure. Showing around 320-350 million would have been current Russia’s population. But its important to remember too that Russia had one of Europe’s highest birthrates then. If Europe is an example,it would have moderated with industrialization anyway. So I suspect around double today’s population (still a great figure) would be more close to the actual amount.

” the US was always ready to destroyed Libya, Syria, Ukraine, but never tried to destroy Mexico, for obvious reasons: because Mexico is on their border. They will never try to destroy Canada, because Canada is on their border. Ukraine is on our border.”

I wonder how those other countries, also on Ukraine’s borders, see this.

Good question. Belarus “should” be worried. They are a target for “democratization” by their pro-nazi elements working with Ukrainian neo-nazis now. Romania and Hungary,probably see both a problem (chaos),and an advantage in the situation (picking up lost territories). Slovakia I suspect is more ambiguous and only are worried about chaos heading their way. Without a minority population in Ukraine they wouldn’t have anything to gain from a break-up there. Poland is the strangest case of all to me.They have almost everything to lose,but don’t see it.There are almost no Poles there.Unlike in the pre-WWII days. And even then the “Kresy” territories were mostly non-Polish by ethnicity.So I don’t see how they can expect to regain those lands.The Western Ukrainian Bandera hate the Polish “Pans” as much as the “Moskals”. So what makes them think they would agree to become Polish again. I don’t see that as possible.You’d see a “guerrilla” war against Poland in that territory, if Poland took it. They’d have to offer them some sort of a Federation with self-government for it to have any chance of success at all. And I don’t see the nationalist Poles as agreeing to that,any more than the Bandera would like that.

The only solutions (workable solutions,maybe) I see are,1, Western and Central Ukraine as one unit,and the South and East (Novorossia) as another unit,but confederated together as self-governing areas similar to Belgium and Bosnia. 2, as two totally separate states independent of each other .3, Novorossia being reunited to Russia. And the other areas, as a “Ukraine”,independent ,or later joining as an autonomous republic the Russian Federation as well. The centralized state they used to have died at maidan in 2014. Too much blood has been spilled to return to that ,I believe.

Ukraine is bordered by Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Russia and Belarus. With the exception perhaps of Belarus, all have historical and ethnic ties to parts of Ukraine. Putin could offer each of them Ukrainian territory in exchange for recognition of Russian aims, some of which already have been achieved.

Poland could be offered a strip of territory that would include Lvov; Slovakia could be offered the city of Uzhgorod; Hungary could be offered the territory of Trans-Carpathia; and Romania could be offered Bukovina and the section of Ukraine that lies between the Prut and Dniester Rivers. In addition, Russia could ratify Romanian interest in Moldavia, also known as Bessarabia, in exchange for Bucharest ceding interest in Transnistria to Moscow. For all of this, Novorossia would acquire a swath of territory in eastern Ukraine, along a line Kharkov-Poltava-Krivoy Rog-Voznessensk-Balta-Odessa.

I don’t see that.First Putin wouldn’t do that ( I see no evidence of that).But more importantly the “borderlands” areas of Ukraine or extremely complicated ethnically.As I said above there are almost no Poles in those regions today. And when that area was ruled by Poland there was mass unrest against that rule.The huge “Ukrainian/West Russian” majority hated the Poles “more” than the “Moskals”. I don’t see them agreeing to be ruled by Poles again,peacefully. And even though there are ethnic Romanian majorities in tiny areas of the Bukovina region. The majority of people in most of that area is “Ukrainian/West Russian”. As for Slovakia,Ukrainians have a better ethnic claim on parts of Eastern Slovakia than Slovaks have on any parts of Ukraine.So that would kill the idea of Slovakia gaining territory (which they didn’t have before).Hungary has the best claim of any territory in that area. The small areas south of the Carpathians are majority Hungarian (Magyar) and were only annexed to Ukraine by Stalin because it was south of the mountain passes.So at best,Romania and Hungary have legitimate claims on small areas. But the others don’t have any legitimate claims on any area of Ukraine today.In fact if anything Ukrainian claims on Poland are more historic (the old ethnic border of pre-WWI eastern Galicia).But with the post-WWII ethnic swaps of population, now the Polish ethnic population is probably a huge majority in that region.

As for your claim about Slovaks… you are all wet. After WWII, Czechoslovakia ceded a part of its territory to USSR (and Ukraina). It was the very eastern, tail end of what is now Slovakia… I know the area well, having spent parts childhood there, and have asked my parent about that loss of the territory. He remembers that people in the area prevailed to join U. – but who knows what went on among the politicians (the people would probably regret that decision now). The folks there (some) consider themselves as Rusins, and not necessarily Ukrainian. To say that Ukraina has a claim on any area is really to show ignorance about how Ukraina came to be… Before WWI, that whole area was under the Habsburgs… who were not above stirring nationalistic sentiments to divide the populace. You might try to listen to prof. Fursov on how Ukraina was spliced together…

OK,I was maybe a little “damp”,but not wet there. Its all in the terms used. The “Ukrainians” as they call themselves are really just West Russian speakers. Just as there are Germans that speak North German dialects (Low German),and South German dialects (High German).There are “Russians” that speak different dialects of the same Rus language. They are now known as “Russians,Ukrainians,and Belorussians”,but still all are Rus Slavs. There was a tiny area of West Russians gained from Slovakia at the end of WWII. But they weren’t Slovaks,so that was what I meant that Slovaks had no legitimate claims on Ukraine.In fact scholars say that many Eastern Slovaks are actually West Russian in ethnic origin.That over centuries they were assimilated into Slovakian society. In those regions a key,though not foolproof method to see ethnic origin is religion.Almost all of the “Greek Catholic” peoples in Slovakia have either a West Russian,or in some small cases a Romanian ethnic origin. Even if they are totally assimilated today as Slovaks.That was what I meant in saying Ukraine would have a better claim to territory if either one did.To my knowledge though today neither makes any claims on the other at all (at least no serious claims). As to the Rusins,they are a sub-group of the West Russian /”Ukrainians”.At one time their numbers were much larger than today. But many of them assimilated into the overall “Ukrainian” population.While some living in Poland and Slovakia assimilated into those nationalities (again follow religion as a guide to the numbers). Unlike most West Ukrainians in Galicia the Rusins have considered themselves as what they are,”Russians”. And there is trouble in that region because they don’t hate “Moskals” like the bandera supporters do.For many years I’ve studied the Hapsburg Empire. So I think I understand their divide and rule policy already,thanks though,I do like Fursov and have read much he’s written.

There are some good observations in this article. But the idea of an inevitable “desintegration of Ukraine” in the near future is somethig I’ve read so many times in the last 2.5 years that I can no longer take it seriously. It has become a kind of fetish for wishful thinking by analysts.
It simply doesn’t matter that a lot of people are leaving or trying to leave the country. This does not mean the state will desintegrate into chaos or that the security forces will lose control of the people that remain. In fact it means the opposite.

Wishful thinking. Be patient. 2.5 years is nothing. And given that The Ukraine achieved independence 25 years ago, without fighting for it or losing lives or materiel, it has single-handedly achieved one of the most spectacular, unilateral cultural/economic collapses in history. The toppling of what was left of a legitimate democracy by inviting in the CIA and Mossad wrecking crew to the Maidan, followed by the vulture capitalists of the USA and IMF can only be compared to the quarreling Moscow princelings of old inviting in the Mongol mercenary force to help them ‘sort things out’.

There can be no doubt in the mind of any dispassionate observer that the former The Ukraine is a country with a bright future… behind it.

thanks for posting article. My mrs is so concerned about the many calls for a russian revolution next November 2017 she sees on various websites, I try to reassure her, but she responds only a few thousand created the Maidan in Ukraine……….and wonders what the USA is funding or planning next……………

I don’t think they would succeed. Putin is “not” the weak Yanukovich. And the police and military of Russia are not US stooges and “weak sisters” that the Ukrainian ones turned out to be.A rebellion would be crushed and then “maybe” that would be the incentive to finally purge the 5th column out of Russian institutions for good.

It’s actually a pleasure to watch a programme where the presenter is not interrupting every minute.

That was an really interesting programme.
There were so many interesting points discussed

1. I have often asked why the population have gone along with this Banderastan government. They have been taken in a short time to war and economic collapse. The explanations given here make sense

2. They discuss economic collapse of Ukraine which is now a fact. However this was something that I understood Russia was against
. Russian business still operate there

3. The break up of Ukraine into regions –

4. The Russian resources to defend and not get distracted by the red herrings put up by enemies. Yesterday I read that NATO was going into Georgia – this action is an obvious provocation, along with the Baltic’s

“…an international law problem. Its solution would depend on the geopolitical situation at that time. It is clear that from the historical standpoint Russia not only can but has an obligation to claim all territories of the former USSR.”

Talk of “international law”, the geopolitical situation”, and “the historical standpoint” is not obviously coherent.

It also appears at odds with the very sensible assertions of President Putin.

Dear Saker, Baz, Scott, awesome translator women (sorry have broken screen on phone and tough to flip through pages so Eugenie it is I think and if not I am sorry) but yes all of you wonderful folk who underpin and drive this site,

The Democratic replacement candidate wil be none other than Albert Arnold Gore..!

Obama in the weirdest way was always going to be Gore’s baptist. If you try very very hard you can find out what exactly the name Obama means but because that might be beyond most peeps I supply it for you: garden servant of the king of the morning. It is a very high born east and central African name. But go on try your luck and find yourselves an african language specialist and verify.

But the first name Barack means lightning bolt…or if you are steeped somewhat in the classics you might say Barack means small vigorous horn. And a small vigorous horn precedes another horn if one remembers the passage from Revelations.

And what is a Gore but a horn.? If one is gored by a bull one is horned by that bull. Ok..great…do you accept the word gore means horn. Phew.!

But what else is a Gore..? Oh, thats right it’s the blood of murder…but ok what else is a gore.? That’s right..!..a gore is a triangle. Yes a triangle .!

And why is that of consequence you may ask…well…there are two triangles in the Bible…one is in the Gospel of John and it has a number which 153…as in 153 fish…as in Pythagoras and 153 fish also…but the connection 153 is the pointer to another number in Revelations…but just before we get to that let me point out that 153 is the sum of the minor Pythagorean triangle…just add 1+2+3+4+,,,,,,17 and guess what..?..you get 153. But don’t just accept that..ask uncle google and he will find you plenty on Pythagorean triangles.

The other number is 666 and it is the number of a triangle too… Just add all the numbers from 1 through to 36 and you get 666…the major Pythagorean triangle.!

In Revelations it says…A mans name and the number of that name is 666.

So if Gore is the pick you understand where things are at. He is gone to birth the carbon dollar. So that no man shall buy or sell except he who has the signifier of all life forms = carbon. But hey you might need some Greek to read what the passage says besides what is there to see in English.!

Certainly the Gospel of John is oft regarded as the most Greek of the New Testament texts. And some say Revelations was by the same hand but of course many more today try hard to distance John the Gospel writer from the John on Patmos.

Graduated with honors from the historical faculty of the Kyiv state University of Taras Shevchenko. From September 1992 to October 1994 he worked in the Ministry of foreign Affairs of Ukraine. Attache, third Secretary (March 1993) Department (1993 — office) policy analysis and planning; second Secretary (may 1994) Department of the OSCE and Council of Europe.

From October 1994 to April 1998, he worked in the presidential Administration of Ukraine. Senior chief (December 1994) consultant to the Department of foreign policy. The member state delegations of Ukraine at the negotiations on the OSCE (Vienna, Austria), as well as during the visits of the President of Ukraine in Georgia, Italy, Greece and Finland. From April 1998 to December 2003 consultant on foreign policy and relations with the press charity Fund “Commonwealth”.

From June 2000 to March 2002 (the time of publication) — the editor of Department of policy of the newspaper “New age” (part-time). From August 2003 to June 2009 — Vice President of corporate relations.” From October 2006 to December 2007 — adviser to the Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine Dmytro Tabachnyk.

From January 2008 to March 2010 — assistant consultant people’s Deputy of Ukraine Dmitry Tabachnik. Since January 2009 — President of “Center of system analysis and forecasting. May 2010 — Advisor to the Minister of education and science, youth and sports of Ukraine.

Diplomatic rank: first Secretary of the first class. Fifth grade civil servant.
After the change of power in Ukraine, March 1, 2014 went to Russia.

At the moment, is Vice President of corporate relations and President of the center of system analysis and forecasting”.

Which I think goes to prove the point that “Russian World (Mir)” people move from spot to spot with ease among the ex-USSR (the Slavic) countries. Not enough attention is paid to that I think. There are millions of people of “Ukrainian origin” happily living as Russians in Russia (not even counting the several million guest workers). And millions of people in “Ukraine” of Russian origin. Today many “less than happily” living there. And its not just regular citizens,its leaders as well. In some of the junta cabinets you had as many people born in Russia or other parts of the ex-USSR than you did native born Ukrainians.That is something not talked enough about I believe.

sorry to say Churchill deliberately and knowingly starved 3 million Bengals and did not give a damn about them. The fact is that they just shipped the rice for storage to England where it was used to make money after the war for more info read Madushree Mukerji Churchill’s secret war

MOSCOW, September 13. /TASS/. Ukraine’s threat to withdraw from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) in case the Russian delegation’s powers are confirmed, attests to Kiev’s failure to understand the values that are considered to be European, head of the Federation Council upper house International Affairs Committee Konstantin Kosachev wrote on his Facebook page, commenting on a statement on the issue made by Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavel Klimkin.
The senator noted that the Ukrainian authorities’ behavior is “another meaningless PR stunt playing the role of an offended child intended for Western audiences,” which could be disregarded. However, this approach also suggests “a deep and crucial lack of understanding of those values, which are considered to be European and which are certainly shared by Russia.” “Actually, this has been confirmed by Crimea and, prior to that, by South Ossetia and Abkhazia,” Kosachev added.
“These values concern, first and foremost, the individual and his rights and only then – everything else,” the parliamentarian said. He pointed out that during the time that has passed since Crimea’s reunification with Russia, Kiev “has never deemed it necessary to think about people living in Crimea, and contact them with any explanations, apologies or promises.”
READ ALSO

Ukraine may refuse to work at PACE if Russia’s powers are restored
“For Kiev, these people do not exist. There are only territories, property on these territories, money and resources,” he noted, adding that this approach differs little “from the mentality seen during the era of slavery, or the Stalinist era.”
This interpretation of values by the authorities in Kiev is very different from the one in Russia, the senator said. “That is why sometimes one may want to ask the following question: Do Europeans themselves share European values?” Kosachev questioned, recalling sanctions “against millions of Crimeans”, the absence of Western response to the subversive activities and attempted terrorist attacks on the peninsula, the persecution of dissidents and the glorification of Nazi collaborators. “Perhaps, the Ukrainian delegation’s timeout in PACE will turn out to be salvation for this organization’s tarnished reputation,” he added.

Murdered Journalist’s 2013 Prophecy: The EU Will Destroy Ukraine (Video)
Oles Buzina foresaw the collapse of his countrу’s economy well before the agreement with Europe was signed

Ignat Borisov

Euro integration will destroy Ukraine’s industries, energy rates will sky rocket, travel will become unaffordable, and Ukrainians will never get a visa free regime with the European Union.

These predictions were made in October 2013, when the country was eagerly anticipating the signing of the Euro association agreement by then President Victor Yanukovich. When he failed to do so he was overthrown in a violent coup in February 2014.

The prophet, a famous Ukrainian author and historian Oles Buzina, was assassinated in what looked like a ritual killing by Neo Nazis at the door of his house in April 2015. The criminals were not found.

The 2013-2014 promises of Paradise on Earth are long forgotten. Ukrainians are being mobilized to resist ‘Russian aggression’ and Vladimir Putin is blamed for the collapse of the Ukrainian economy.

But Oles Buzina’s detailed predictions of the disaster to come is here for all to see.

In May 2016 RI Editor Charles Bausman was awarded Oles Buzina Prize for Excellence in Journalism.

Yes, unfortunately Russia missed its historical opportunity in 1860-th when freeing bonded peasants didn’t go far enough. At that time its economy was on par with other European countries and USA was actually behind with just freed slaves and Civil war. Since than it was going from one crises to another with various severity. Each one took its tall on population and economy.

video and extensive analysis of those who wish to destroy russia………………liberals and far right join up……………………..
““Exposed: Who Wants To Dismantle Russia?” is a REN TV documentary that uses factual evidence (publicly available video, interviews, or in some cases paparazzi tactics) to expose the recent merger between Russia’s far-left, pro-Western neoliberals (Mikhail KASIANOV, his “PARNAS” political party, and their backers like KHODORKOVSKY) and the far-right nationalists/Neo-Nazis.

Of course, this movie is intended to influence the Russian Duma elections, on September 18th, hence its publication on the 9th.

And of course, some of the connections it makes are tenuous. For example, the connection it shows between “PARNAS” and “Firstline” skinheads is that a well-known skinhead was present at their “democratic coalition” meeting, hardly a big deal (although the movie later shows that these skinheads are directly connected to the Russian and Ukrainian hardline nationalists, some of which have recently become key figures in PARNAS).

That said, just because the authors want Kasianov to lose the election, doesn’t mean their claims are untrue (heck, after watching this movie, any normal person would want to do everything in their power to keep Kasianov out of Duma).

In fact, I find that the vast majority of the claims in this movie are better researched and presented than e.g. the recent BBC documentary about “Putin’s riches”, which I made fun of in one of my articles (although this speaks more so about the utter degradation of BBC journalism).

All in all, I wholeheartedly suggest you watch this documentary in Russian, if you speak the language – it reveals everything you need to know about the true motivations of the people promoted as “Russia’s future” in Western mass media (especially so if you or anyone you know wants to take part in Russian Duma elections).

If you don’t, I can offer you a timeline/synopsis, and an English voiceover by yours truly (unfortunately, subtitles for such a large, speech-heavy movie are beyond my personal capability at the moment).”……….Fort Russ, September 14th, 2016
by Tatzhit Mihailovich

Sitemap

Saker Android App

An Android App has been developed by one of our supporters. It is available for download and install by clicking on the Google Play Store Badge above.

All the original content published on this blog is licensed by Saker Analytics, LLC under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0). For permission to re-publish or otherwise use non-original or non-licensed content, please consult the respective source of the content.